garded those who had brought him in as his enemies, as much as those against whom they had sought his assistance.

Titus had returned to Cæsarea to make his preparations for the siege of Jerusalem. But before he advanced, conflicts again recurred in the city, the consequences of which were afterwards heavily felt when there was famine within the walls. Eleazar, who at first had separated the Zealots from the people, but had afterwards given place to John of Gischala as a leader, now endeavoured to make himself independent of John, and seized upon the inner court of the Temple, where his followers laid their arms in the holy places, and consumed the provisions which had been laid up in great abundance, and consecrated for sacred purposes. This party of the Zealots was few in number, but they had the advantage of the highest ground. Simon had possession of the upper city and great part of the lower, whilst John's position was between Simon and Eleazar; and as he was at a disadvantage as to the ground compared with Eleazar, he had a corresponding advantage over Simon's followers in his front. He was of course open to the attacks of both of them between whom he was placed. In repelling the attacks of Eleazar from above, he made use of engines to throw darts and other weapons and stones, which often reached the Priests and Levites and worshippers, so that many who came from remote places fell before their own sacrifices, and the court of the Temple itself was defiled with heaps of bodies, and ran with blood. Against the assaults of Simon he made sallies, and set the city on fire, and Simon did the same, until the space round the Temple became wasted and bare and open. Here there had been in many houses stores of grain, enough to have fed the city for many years, but it was thus madly destroyed. And as Titus had then returned from Egypt into Judæa, the Jews had not a fresh harvest, or any means of making good the loss, before the Romans were upon them.

This was the condition to which Jerusalem had been brought by the factions within her walls, when Titus began his march against it.

WORDS OF CAUTION IN REFERENCE TO THE POSITION OF THE EVANGELICAL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AT THE PRESENT TIME.

EACH successive period of the Church's history has its own peculiar perils and difficulties. It is not wise to be always sounding the alarm, nor is it safe to take it for granted that all is prosperous because no adverse events of a startling character are taking place.

Caution is especially needful in a time like the present, when rapid changes occur in the sentiments of men, on almost all subjects. Everything is now in motion. Old opinions and time-honoured authorities are being daily called in question. Novelties are eagerly sought after. Religious questions are

canvassed with the utmost freedom.

The public press aids in disseminating the popular views of the day on religious questions, in a manner never before known. An unusual activity is pervading the Church of England. Our bishops are setting the example. The clergy are devoting themselves to their sacred duties with an energy and zeal unseen in former times. Meanwhile, there appears to be a disposition among influential members of the several parties into which the Church is divided, to combine and fraternize in a way not hitherto attempted. The three great bodies which the Church of England now embraces, appear in some measure to be losing their distinctive character, and to be undergoing a moral fusion.

One of the most remarkable features of the day is the manner in which the High Church or Tractarian body, and the Broad Church or Movement party, are working together. It is true that there are certain marked exceptions; but in the main the two are walking hand in hand. The effect of this union is, that much of the sceptical and rationalistic tendency which marks the Broad Church division, is being diffused among those who have hitherto strictly maintained the High Church system. The injurious influence of this cannot but be keenly felt throughout the Church. Men who profess to be strongly opposed to the extreme views of the Broad Church leaders, do not hesitate to avow their sympathy with many of the favourite tenets of that body.

The inspiration of the Bible is no longer held by them with that unhesitating faith which it once was. It is admitted that the Scriptures may be in error, in matters not affecting the faith of the Gospel, without injury to their general authority as the Word of God. The tendency of all this is to lower the tone of religion in our Church, to increase the sceptical tendencies of the age, to get rid of dogmas, and to leave as many open questions as possible, with a view to produce a large and comprehensive scheme. The safeguards of our Church are being knocked away one after another. The laity are becoming unsettled in their minds, and the door is being thrown open for a tide of worldliness and infidelity to flow in.

"Religious questions," to use the eloquent language of one of our prelates on a recent occasion, are now discussed in reference to society and general order. The result is a worldliness of tone almost frightful. The Church is regarded as a useful society for the suppression of vice; her ministers are deemed a spiritual police. Its sceptical spirit is not anti-Chris

tian, but non-Christian. It does not oppose the truth, but uses it for its own purposes. The spirit of the world is the moving spirit. The trail of the serpent is on every green leaf.”

That a degree of sympathy should exist between the two divisions of the Church above alluded to, was perhaps to be expected. They agree in dwelling mainly on the externals of religion. They agree in their dislike to spiritual and evangelical piety. They agree in combining a conformity to the world with supposed orthodoxy of doctrine. They agree in idolizing intellect, and in regarding the discoveries of science as qualified to regulate and modify our religious belief. Rome and Germany thus shake hands. But the more serious ground of anxiety arises from another quarter. There appears to be a desire, on the part of those to whom I have alluded, to lay the basis of a loose, comprehensive churchmanship, which may open the door of admission to a third party. I allude to the Evangelical members of the Church. That body now occupies a position of peculiar importance and responsibility. It has not suffered, as the other two parties have done, from the sceptical tendencies of the age. German neology is not preached in their pulpits. They are now the Conservative party in the Church. They do not desire, as a body (whatever certain individuals among them may wish), any important changes in the Articles and formularies of the Church, nor do they wish to alter the Final Court of Appeal, to which their orthodoxy is ultimately to be referred; however much they may regret the recent decision respecting Essays and Reviews. They are, in fact, the only thoroughly united and unchanged body in the Church. It was, therefore, to be expected that attempts should be made, from time to time, to court their co-operation. Their numbers are large; their influence, more especially among the middle classes of society, very considerable. Their opinion on public questions, when they choose to express it, is of undoubted weight. They cannot now be overlooked as they once were, and their very existence ignored. They have recently taken an active part in preparing and obtaining signatures to certain protests, which have been circulated against the novel doctrines which are now broached. In this undertaking, a large number of the High Church School have worked with them. Thus, names usually representing the most opposite opinions, have been found appended to the same document.

I am not prepared to say that, in taking this step, our Evangelical friends have been guilty of any undue compromise; but I strongly feel that caution is needed, lest this should pave the way to further amalgamation.

The public Congress which is now annually held, and in which certain leading members of the Evangelical body take a prominent part, is a further step in the same direction. I question much the wisdom of this course. What has been

gained to religion by this Congress? What practical results of a beneficial character have followed? Men of extreme views, in the High Church and Broad Church schools, have thus had the opportunity of uniting with the Evangelical clergy in expressing publicly their sentiments on questions on which no great difference of opinion exists between them. And yet these men are opposed to each other, in the widest possible manner, in reference to the principles on which these very measures should be carried out. The result is, that those who have convened the Congress have had the satisfaction of stating that all parties in the Church were duly represented, and that a bond of union had thus been formed between them; when the fact is, as they well know, that they differ from each other on matters of the most vital and interior character, affecting the state of the heart before God, and the entire life and conversation before the world.

In reference to this point, my attention has been recently called to a pamphlet,* containing the substance of an address, delivered last October, before a large meeting of Evangelical clergy, and which appears to have been received with very general approbation. In this address, the practicability of union between the different parties in the Church is advocated. The Oxford address is supposed to have laid the foundation for this union. The writer proposes to discuss the principles which are to serve as our guides in these matters. These are said to be mutual candour and frankness in avowing each our own sentiments; mutual respect and forbearance toward each other; the adoption of a greater intimacy, both in spirit and action, with those of the other schools; and the seizing upon opportunities for promoting this union of an unceremonious. and informal character. The writer tells us that he looks upon the Church of England as a via media, exhibiting a wise avoidance of extremes. "She stands," he says, 66 on two feet-the one Evangelical or Puritan, the other Sacramentarian or High Church; and the stronger and sounder the condition of both, the better will it be for the Church." He also recommends forbearance towards those who are still "floundering," as he expresses it, "in the Sceptical Slough of Despond;" and bids us to beware of surrendering the right of private judgment. Now, I venture to enter my solemn protest against these attempts, however well intended, to bridge over the broad abyss which ever must subsist between truth and error. points of difference between us do not admit of this sort of compromise, nor can they be decided by argument alone. They affect the interior work of the Holy Ghost in the soul. It is true that there is something plausible and attractive in the "The Practicabilities of Union," by Rev. W. S. Lewis, Incumbent of Trinity Church, Ripon.

The

suggestion, "they will learn from us, and we shall learn from them." I also joyfully admit, that in the ranks of the opposite parties some humble and sincere Christians are to be found. But I am now referring to measures of a public and comprehensive character, which would tend to break down the barriers between the parties above referred to.

The above suggestions may emanate, as I doubt not they do, from motives of kindness and love; but a higher and more momentous principle is at stake. Is this line of conduct in accordance with the precepts and example of our Divine Master? Let us act with all courtesy and Christian forbearance towards those who differ from us; but let there be no compromise of principle.

The question resolves itself simply into this,-How far a clergyman holding Evangelical truth is at liberty, for the sake of apparent union, to merge the points of difference between himself and others, and to stand forth in a public assembly to discuss matters of secondary importance side by side with those who are aiming to subvert the very principles which he holds to be dearer than life; who are either maintaining, at all cost, the Sacramental system, or are lowering the supreme authority of the Word of God.

I am, of course, not referring now to Diocesan meetings, called by the bishop for certain definite purposes, and where the clergy meet strictly in their official capacity; nor to those which are gathered for some specific practical object, such as church extension. What I object to is, the voluntary gathering of men of opposite sentiments on essential matters, in order to discuss religious subjects which, however important in themselves, are yet subordinate to fundamental truth.

The effect of this must, I fear, be to lower the tone of piety, and to lead the laity to imagine that the clergy do not attach the importance which they were supposed to do to these primary matters. Amore disastrous state of things I cannot imagine, than a fusion of all religious differences in one general mass of lax churchmanship and loose profession. The very life and power of religion will be eaten out, the Spirit of God grieved, and genuine piety effaced. Not that I at all anticipate such a state of things at the present time, I merely venture to throw out these thoughts by way of caution. I am jealous for the purity and integrity of religion in the bosom of our Scriptural Church. God has hitherto greatly honoured and blessed those of her members who have boldly maintained Evangelical principles.

The great religious movement which has taken place both at home and abroad within the last half century has originated mainly with them. They form the very life and soul of the Church of England. They faithfully represent the doctrines and sentiments of the Reformers, as expressed in our Church